From mschmidt at ripe.net Tue Dec 3 15:07:24 2013 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 15:07:24 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space) Message-ID: Dear colleagues, The proposal 2013-06, "PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space" has been withdrawn. It is now archived and can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-06 Reason for withdrawal: During the Discussion Phase it became clear that the RIPE community did not see the need for such a complex change. As a result, the proposers decided to withdraw the proposal. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Office RIPE NCC From gert at space.net Thu Dec 5 19:31:21 2013 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 19:31:21 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03: Review Phase - New Proposal Description and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: <1384942149.9327@mobil.space.net> References: <1384942149.9327@mobil.space.net> Message-ID: <20131205183121.GA54642@Space.Net> Dear AP WG, On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:01:24AM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: [..] > We encourage you to read the proposal and the impact analysis and send any > comments to before 5 December 2013. the review phase for 2013-03 has ended today. No comments were received, thus I consider all opinions expressed in the previous review phase to be unchanged (as announced, given that the policy *text* has not changed at all) - that is, 32 persons expressing support of the proposal, 3 persons opposing it. Given the amount of support, and the nature of the opposition, the WG chairs have decided that we have reached rough consensus. We think that all counterarguments brought up by the opposers have been fully answered - this might not be sufficient to convince the opposers to change their mind, but given sufficient support otherwise, it's good enough to move forward. This is what we'll do now -> move 2013-03 to Last Call. Marco will send the formal announcement for that later today or tomorrow. For reference, a list of people that voiced support or opposition (or something else) in the previous review phase is appended below. This is what the chairs based their decision on. If you disagree with our interpretation of what has been said, and the conclusion we have drawn from it, please let us know. Gert Doering, Address Policy WG Chair support: Mikael Abrahamsson Randy Bush Daniel Stolpe Dimitri I Sidelnikov Andy Davidson Sascha Luck Jan Zorz Bengt G?rd?n Raluca Andreea Gogiou Roger J?rgensen Richard Hartmann (strong sentiments that this is the last round) Andreas Larsen Jan Ingvoldstad (strong sentiments that this is the last round) Elvis Daniel Velea Nigel Titley (seconding Richard's sentiments) Gerry Demaret Sebastian Wiesinger Lu Heng Sonderegger Olaf Ian Johannesen Fredrik Widell Alexey Ivanov Sandra Brown Donal Cunningham Tassos Chatzithomaoglou Mike Burns George Giannousopoulos Ragnar Anfinsen Milton L Mueller Ronny Boesger Dominik Bay Lutz Donnerhacke support, based on changes to the external PR regarding 2013-03, and some future PDP tasks for the chairs and the community Malcolm Hutty (see <52406426.8080405 at linx.net> for details) neutral (mailing to the thread, but not expressing support/opposition): CJ Aronson Nick Hilliard Hans Petter Holen John Curran opposing: McTim "I don't think shifting to a market based allocation/assignment system is good stewardship. In addition there are multiple issues listed in the Impact Analysis that cause me great concern. The primary issue there is incompatibility with other regional transfer policies." considered to be completely answered by the chairs, on the basis that 2013-03 does not introduce a transfer market, documenting the goal to assign to end users was introduced in v3 of the proposal, and incompatibilities with other regions' transfer policies can be amended by adding appropriate checks to our cross-RIR-policy-to-be, if the community ever expresses enough interest to make one (which currently does not seem to be the case). Also, most other issues raised in the IA have been addressed by v4 of the proposal, which changed the title and rationale to send a less controversial message to external parties. So we consider this to be addressed as well. Filiz Yilmaz would support if criteria for allocation would be amended to include "LIR must demonstrate its need for the IPv4 address space" This was carefully listened to, and discussed with NCC RS to see what the impact would be. NCC RS stated that the addition of this sentence would not change their interpretation of the policy, given that all the LIR can do to demonstrate it's need is the willingness to make an assignment from it - and that is already there. Based on this and based on the significant number of people asking for the proposal to go forward and not do another round of textual change and impact analysis, the chairs decided to consider this point answered, and go forward. Sylvain Vallerot main issue seems to be that this proposal would bring LIR admins under pressure from unreasonable customer demands and that could create very problematic situations inside the LIR, without being able to point to RIR policies to back not giving out addresses. considered to be answered by the proposer, as there is pressure inside all LIRs anyway, and even with the old formalism in place, a LIR might very well run into the same situation of having to deny addresses to some of it's customer as there are just not enough left anymore to give all of them what they ask for. David Farmer initially "-1"'ing, then clarifying this to be more on the discussion between Sylvain and Tore, and explicitely stating neutrality on the proposal itself -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 826 bytes Desc: not available URL: From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Thu Dec 5 21:33:26 2013 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 21:33:26 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03: Review Phase - New Proposal Description and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: <20131205183121.GA54642@Space.Net> References: <1384942149.9327@mobil.space.net> <20131205183121.GA54642@Space.Net> Message-ID: Dear chair, thanks for your work; tracking this behemoth of a discussion must be a lot of fun! Richard From mschmidt at ripe.net Fri Dec 6 14:13:31 2013 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 14:13:31 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 Last Call for Comments (Post Depletion Adjustment of Procedures to Match Policy Objectives, and Clean-up of Obsolete Policy Text) Message-ID: Dear colleagues, The proposal described in 2013-03, "Post Depletion Adjustment of Procedures to Match Policy Objectives, and Clean-up of Obsolete Policy Text", is now in its Concluding Phase. The Address Policy Working Group co-Chairs have declared that consensus for the proposal has been reached and it will now move to Last Call. As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of these coming four weeks of Last Call is to give the community the opportunity to present well-justified objections in case anyone missed the previous two phases and want to oppose the proposal. Any objection must be made by 6 January 2014 and must be supported by an explanation. If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the co-Chairs of all RIPE Working Groups for consensus. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 6 January 2014. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Office RIPE NCC From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Mon Dec 9 15:58:17 2013 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 15:58:17 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 28, Issue 1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hey guys: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03 under b. Arguments opposing the proposal, point 3, there is following link, in which is not working. http://www.ripe.net/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2012-October/007258.html Mind someone check it and help to fix it? On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:15 PM, wrote: > Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > address-policy-wg at ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address-policy-wg-owner at ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Announcing address resources (Sebastian Wiesinger) > 2. ripe-589 question (Raimundas Tuminauskas) > 3. Re: ripe-589 question (Sander Steffann) > 4. 2013-06 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (PA/PI Unification IPv6 > Address Space) (Marco Schmidt) > 5. Re: 2013-03: Review Phase - New Proposal Description and > Impact Analysis Published (Gert Doering) > 6. Re: 2013-03: Review Phase - New Proposal Description and > Impact Analysis Published (Richard Hartmann) > 7. 2013-03 Last Call for Comments (Post Depletion Adjustment of > Procedures to Match Policy Objectives, and Clean-up of Obsolete > Policy Text) (Marco Schmidt) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:48:24 +0100 > From: Sebastian Wiesinger > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Announcing address resources > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Message-ID: <20131125084824.GA25194 at danton.fire-world.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > * Nick Hilliard [2013-11-21 22:36]: >> Apropos of, oh I don't know, the weather or the phase of the moon or >> something, could someone point me to the RIPE policy which says that if >> you're assigned address resources from the RIPE NCC, that they cannot be >> announced from outside the RIPE NCC service region? > > Hi, > > the way I understood it is that the LIR company has to be in the RIPE > region but where you announce your prefixes is your decision. I > requested an AS&PA explicitly for announcement in asia without any > problems. > > > Regards > > Sebastian > > -- > GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) > 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. > -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 05:57:33 +0200 > From: Raimundas Tuminauskas > Subject: [address-policy-wg] ripe-589 question > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Message-ID: <20131129055733.18765g0w8kjb0hog at pastas.litnet.lt> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" > > Dear all, > > We've ran into internal conflict assigning IPv6 address space. Anyone > caring to provide independent view on this would be much appreciated. > > Problem: > LITNET (org: ORG-LA11-RIPE) has been comprised of two ASNs 2847 and 5479. > Current IPv6 allocation is /29 (inet6num: 2001:778::/29). > Current policy is to assign /32 per AS. > Proposed new policy is to assign /30 per AS. > > Arguments for new policy: > - RIPE-589 3.4 (Aggregation) and 3.8 (Conflict of goals) > > Arguments for current policy: > - Two routes will be announced anyway. Different AS_PATH and routing > policies, no aggregation. > - /32 is 1200+ /64s per head of population of the country. Should be > enough for any local AS for foreseeable future. Revise assignment > planning if not. > - The same address space allocation will be preserved for future AS if > any current end-user (university) would require independent routing > policies. > - We will not get any wider allocation. Next address range (if it will > happen) will be far off from 2001:778 > > I'm not in favor of wasting a long-term resource like IPv6 and rather > deviate from the policy, but maybe I'm missing a point here somewhere ? > TIA > > sincerely, > Raimundas Tuminauskas > KTU ITD / LITNET NOC > Studentu 48a, Kaunas > 51367, Lithuania > phone: +370 37300033 > fax: +370 37300643 > email: raimis at litnet.lt > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 07:32:40 +0100 > From: Sander Steffann > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] ripe-589 question > To: Raimundas Tuminauskas > Cc: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net Working Group" > > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Hi, > >> We've ran into internal conflict assigning IPv6 address space. Anyone caring to provide independent view on this would be much appreciated. >> >> Problem: >> LITNET (org: ORG-LA11-RIPE) has been comprised of two ASNs 2847 and 5479. >> Current IPv6 allocation is /29 (inet6num: 2001:778::/29). >> Current policy is to assign /32 per AS. >> Proposed new policy is to assign /30 per AS. >> >> Arguments for new policy: >> - RIPE-589 3.4 (Aggregation) and 3.8 (Conflict of goals) >> >> Arguments for current policy: >> - Two routes will be announced anyway. Different AS_PATH and routing policies, no aggregation. >> - /32 is 1200+ /64s per head of population of the country. Should be enough for any local AS for foreseeable future. Revise assignment planning if not. > > I wouldn't count separate /64s as that will give you a distorted number. Count using the assignment size you are using, which I assume is a /48 per customer/university/research-institution/etc. That gives you a maximum of 65536 per /32. In a country with a population of 3 million that is probably enough to number all your customers :-) > >> - The same address space allocation will be preserved for future AS if any current end-user (university) would require independent routing policies. >> - We will not get any wider allocation. Next address range (if it will happen) will be far off from 2001:778 > > So why don't you announce 2001:778::/32 from one AS and 2001:77c::/32 from the other? If you need more space in one AS then you can grow to a /31 or /30, and if you don't need to grow them then you might, if at some point in the future you need a separate routing policy, announce the remaining space from a separate AS. > >> I'm not in favor of wasting a long-term resource like IPv6 and rather deviate from the policy, but maybe I'm missing a point here somewhere ? > > Well, you can get the /29, and nobody else is going to get it, so you might as well make the best use of it. I just asked the NCC to expand my /32 to a /29. I use the first /32 for a LISP-based ISP setup, and I'm going to use one or more separate /32s for training purposes for ISPs. The nice thing about IPv6 is that we can always get enough space for what we need (within limits of course ;-) > > Cheers, > Sander > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 15:07:24 +0100 > From: "Marco Schmidt" > Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (PA/PI > Unification IPv6 Address Space) > To: policy-announce at ripe.net > Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Message-ID: > > > Dear colleagues, > > > The proposal 2013-06, "PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space" has been withdrawn. > > > It is now archived and can be found at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-06 > > > Reason for withdrawal: During the Discussion Phase it became clear that the RIPE > community did not see the need for such a complex change. As a result, the > proposers decided to withdraw the proposal. > > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Office > RIPE NCC > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 19:31:21 +0100 > From: Gert Doering > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03: Review Phase - New Proposal > Description and Impact Analysis Published > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Message-ID: <20131205183121.GA54642 at Space.Net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Dear AP WG, > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:01:24AM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: > [..] >> We encourage you to read the proposal and the impact analysis and send any >> comments to before 5 December 2013. > > the review phase for 2013-03 has ended today. No comments were received, > thus I consider all opinions expressed in the previous review phase to be > unchanged (as announced, given that the policy *text* has not changed > at all) - that is, 32 persons expressing support of the proposal, 3 persons > opposing it. > > Given the amount of support, and the nature of the opposition, the WG > chairs have decided that we have reached rough consensus. We think that > all counterarguments brought up by the opposers have been fully answered - > this might not be sufficient to convince the opposers to change their mind, > but given sufficient support otherwise, it's good enough to move forward. > > This is what we'll do now -> move 2013-03 to Last Call. Marco will send > the formal announcement for that later today or tomorrow. > > For reference, a list of people that voiced support or opposition (or > something else) in the previous review phase is appended below. This is > what the chairs based their decision on. > > If you disagree with our interpretation of what has been said, and the > conclusion we have drawn from it, please let us know. > > Gert Doering, > Address Policy WG Chair > > > support: > Mikael Abrahamsson > Randy Bush > Daniel Stolpe > Dimitri I Sidelnikov > Andy Davidson > Sascha Luck > Jan Zorz > Bengt G?rd?n > Raluca Andreea Gogiou > Roger J?rgensen > Richard Hartmann (strong sentiments that this is the last round) > Andreas Larsen > Jan Ingvoldstad (strong sentiments that this is the last round) > Elvis Daniel Velea > Nigel Titley (seconding Richard's sentiments) > Gerry Demaret > Sebastian Wiesinger > Lu Heng > Sonderegger Olaf > Ian Johannesen > Fredrik Widell > Alexey Ivanov > Sandra Brown > Donal Cunningham > Tassos Chatzithomaoglou > Mike Burns > George Giannousopoulos > Ragnar Anfinsen > Milton L Mueller > Ronny Boesger > Dominik Bay > Lutz Donnerhacke > > support, based on changes to the external PR regarding 2013-03, and > some future PDP tasks for the chairs and the community > Malcolm Hutty (see <52406426.8080405 at linx.net> for details) > > neutral (mailing to the thread, but not expressing support/opposition): > CJ Aronson > Nick Hilliard > Hans Petter Holen > John Curran > > > opposing: > McTim > "I don't think shifting to a market based allocation/assignment system > is good stewardship. In addition there are multiple issues listed in > the Impact Analysis that cause me great concern. The primary issue > there is incompatibility with other regional transfer policies." > > considered to be completely answered by the chairs, on the basis > that 2013-03 does not introduce a transfer market, documenting the > goal to assign to end users was introduced in v3 of the proposal, > and incompatibilities with other regions' transfer policies can be > amended by adding appropriate checks to our cross-RIR-policy-to-be, > if the community ever expresses enough interest to make one (which > currently does not seem to be the case). > > Also, most other issues raised in the IA have been addressed by v4 > of the proposal, which changed the title and rationale to send a > less controversial message to external parties. So we consider this > to be addressed as well. > > Filiz Yilmaz > would support if criteria for allocation would be amended to include > "LIR must demonstrate its need for the IPv4 address space" > > This was carefully listened to, and discussed with NCC RS to see > what the impact would be. NCC RS stated that the addition of this > sentence would not change their interpretation of the policy, given > that all the LIR can do to demonstrate it's need is the willingness > to make an assignment from it - and that is already there. > > Based on this and based on the significant number of people asking for > the proposal to go forward and not do another round of textual change > and impact analysis, the chairs decided to consider this point > answered, and go forward. > > Sylvain Vallerot > main issue seems to be that this proposal would bring LIR admins > under pressure from unreasonable customer demands and that could > create very problematic situations inside the LIR, without being > able to point to RIR policies to back not giving out addresses. > > considered to be answered by the proposer, as there is pressure > inside all LIRs anyway, and even with the old formalism in place, > a LIR might very well run into the same situation of having to deny > addresses to some of it's customer as there are just not enough left > anymore to give all of them what they ask for. > > David Farmer > initially "-1"'ing, then clarifying this to be more on the discussion > between Sylvain and Tore, and explicitely stating neutrality on the > proposal itself > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: not available > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 826 bytes > Desc: not available > Url : https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20131205/c9364fea/attachment-0001.bin > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 21:33:26 +0100 > From: Richard Hartmann > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03: Review Phase - New Proposal > Description and Impact Analysis Published > To: Gert Doering > Cc: Address Policy Working Group > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Dear chair, > > thanks for your work; tracking this behemoth of a discussion must be a > lot of fun! > > > Richard > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 14:13:31 +0100 > From: "Marco Schmidt" > Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 Last Call for Comments (Post > Depletion Adjustment of Procedures to Match Policy Objectives, and > Clean-up of Obsolete Policy Text) > To: policy-announce at ripe.net > Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Message-ID: > > > Dear colleagues, > > > The proposal described in 2013-03, "Post Depletion Adjustment of Procedures > to Match Policy Objectives, and Clean-up of Obsolete Policy Text", is now > in its Concluding Phase. > > The Address Policy Working Group co-Chairs have declared that consensus for > the proposal has been reached and it will now move to Last Call. > > As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of these > coming four weeks of Last Call is to give the community the opportunity > to present well-justified objections in case anyone missed the previous > two phases and want to oppose the proposal. > > Any objection must be made by 6 January 2014 and must be supported by an > explanation. > > If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the > proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the co-Chairs of > all RIPE Working Groups for consensus. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03 > > Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg at ripe.net > before 6 January 2014. > > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Office > RIPE NCC > > > > > End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 28, Issue 1 > ************************************************ -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. From tore at fud.no Mon Dec 9 16:23:53 2013 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 16:23:53 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 28, Issue 1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52A5E089.70603@fud.no> * Lu Heng > http://www.ripe.net/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2012-October/007258.html > > Mind someone check it and help to fix it? Hi Lu, The correct link is: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2012-October/007258.html (The NCC has probably reorganised its website at some point, causing the original link to break.) Tore From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Mon Dec 9 16:31:38 2013 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 16:31:38 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 28, Issue 1 In-Reply-To: <52A5E089.70603@fud.no> References: <52A5E089.70603@fud.no> Message-ID: Hi Tore: Thanks, I knew it as I have followed the whole discussion process. Just to point it out an invalid link:) On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Lu Heng > >> http://www.ripe.net/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2012-October/007258.html >> >> Mind someone check it and help to fix it? > > Hi Lu, > > The correct link is: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2012-October/007258.html > > (The NCC has probably reorganised its website at some point, causing the > original link to break.) > > Tore -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. From sander at steffann.nl Mon Dec 9 23:20:35 2013 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 23:20:35 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 28, Issue 1 In-Reply-To: <52A5E089.70603@fud.no> References: <52A5E089.70603@fud.no> Message-ID: <5B2F7BDB-AD4D-4D1B-AA3B-873B19FC8E65@steffann.nl> Hi, >> http://www.ripe.net/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2012-October/007258.html >> >> Mind someone check it and help to fix it? > > Hi Lu, > > The correct link is: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2012-October/007258.html I think a formal request to the PDO is in order here: can the NCC please make sure that links to mailing list archives are never broken? There are too many external references to them. Besides, a redirect from 'mail/archives/address-policy-wg' to 'ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg' shouldn't be that hard to implement ;-) Cheers, Sander APWG co-chair From nick at inex.ie Mon Dec 9 23:54:58 2013 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 22:54:58 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 28, Issue 1 In-Reply-To: <5B2F7BDB-AD4D-4D1B-AA3B-873B19FC8E65@steffann.nl> References: <52A5E089.70603@fud.no> <5B2F7BDB-AD4D-4D1B-AA3B-873B19FC8E65@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <52A64A42.9090008@inex.ie> On 09/12/2013 22:20, Sander Steffann wrote: > can the NCC please make sure that links to mailing list archives are > never broken? There are too many external references to them reality check: "never" is a long time and the ripe web site is labyrinthine. Creating a requirement never to break URLs sounds like a great idea until you realise how much work is required to implement it, and how restrictive it can become. It's usually better to depend on an up-to-date search mechanism. just sayin'. Nick From tore at fud.no Mon Dec 9 23:59:35 2013 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 23:59:35 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 28, Issue 1 In-Reply-To: <5B2F7BDB-AD4D-4D1B-AA3B-873B19FC8E65@steffann.nl> References: <52A5E089.70603@fud.no> <5B2F7BDB-AD4D-4D1B-AA3B-873B19FC8E65@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <52A64B57.5050309@fud.no> * Sander Steffann > I think a formal request to the PDO is in order here: can the NCC > please make sure that links to mailing list archives are never > broken? There are too many external references to them. Besides, a > redirect from 'mail/archives/address-policy-wg' to > 'ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg' shouldn't be that hard to > implement ;-) On closer look, it's not the mailing list archive that changed, it's the way it's being linked to from the proposal's page: ?version=1: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2012-October/007258.html ?version=2: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2012-October/007258.html ?version=3: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2012-October/007258.html Somehow a few extraneous ".."s sneaked in the href of v2 and v3.... (?version=4 seems fixed now and uses an absolute URL. Thanks to whoever did that!) Tore From sander at steffann.nl Tue Dec 10 00:13:27 2013 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 00:13:27 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 28, Issue 1 In-Reply-To: <52A64A42.9090008@inex.ie> References: <52A5E089.70603@fud.no> <5B2F7BDB-AD4D-4D1B-AA3B-873B19FC8E65@steffann.nl> <52A64A42.9090008@inex.ie> Message-ID: <3B8326B5-482C-4167-A5BC-32E2B2B9255D@steffann.nl> Hi, Op 9 dec. 2013, om 23:54 heeft Nick Hilliard het volgende geschreven: > On 09/12/2013 22:20, Sander Steffann wrote: >> can the NCC please make sure that links to mailing list archives are >> never broken? There are too many external references to them > > reality check: "never" is a long time and the ripe web site is labyrinthine. True > Creating a requirement never to break URLs sounds like a great idea until > you realise how much work is required to implement it, and how restrictive > it can become. It's usually better to depend on an up-to-date search > mechanism. I prefer URLs to crucial stuff like mailing list archives and RIPE documents to be stable. Of course, _never_ may be the wrong requirement, but breaking such URLs should be done consciously, if/when it happens. In this case it seems to be a different mistake anyway, but this is a good thing to keep in mind for the future :-) Cheers! Sander From sander at steffann.nl Tue Dec 10 00:19:34 2013 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 00:19:34 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 28, Issue 1 In-Reply-To: <52A64B57.5050309@fud.no> References: <52A5E089.70603@fud.no> <5B2F7BDB-AD4D-4D1B-AA3B-873B19FC8E65@steffann.nl> <52A64B57.5050309@fud.no> Message-ID: <0862E17C-1FAA-4531-9E45-4E1DBA0A44FC@steffann.nl> Hi, Op 9 dec. 2013, om 23:59 heeft Tore Anderson het volgende geschreven: > On closer look, it's not the mailing list archive that changed, it's > the way it's being linked to from the proposal's page: > > ?version=1: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2012-October/007258.html > ?version=2: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2012-October/007258.html > ?version=3: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2012-October/007258.html > > Somehow a few extraneous ".."s sneaked in the href of v2 and v3.... Even more funny: why show the absolute URL in the text but make the actual href relative? > (?version=4 seems fixed now and uses an absolute URL. Thanks to whoever did that!) Which seems the right thing to do :-) Anyway, it seems this is just a broken link and not a URL change, so all is well. Request to PDO: please fix the links in versions 2 and 3 and make them absolute, just to keep the history correct when someone wants to evaluate the process in the future. Thanks all! Sander From hostmaster at ntx.ru Tue Dec 10 01:32:47 2013 From: hostmaster at ntx.ru (Olga Romanova) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 04:32:47 +0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 28, Issue 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52A6612F.6080304@ntx.ru> we are intrested to assist and support changes. a lot of changes should be made in the policy. a lot of things are too old to be true. but all this email systems are of couse too old and a lot of people and LIRs just ignore this ability. but looks RIPE don't wanna add any new possibility??? On 10.12.2013 2:20, address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net wrote: > Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > address-policy-wg at ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address-policy-wg-owner at ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 28, Issue 1 (Lu Heng) > 2. Re: address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 28, Issue 1 (Tore Anderson) > 3. Re: address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 28, Issue 1 (Lu Heng) > 4. Re: address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 28, Issue 1 (Sander Steffann) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 15:58:17 +0100 > From: Lu Heng > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 28, > Issue 1 > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Hey guys: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03 > > under b. Arguments opposing the proposal, point 3, there is following > link, in which is not working. > > http://www.ripe.net/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2012-October/007258.html > > Mind someone check it and help to fix it? > > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:15 PM, wrote: >> Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to >> address-policy-wg at ripe.net >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> address-policy-wg-owner at ripe.net >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: Announcing address resources (Sebastian Wiesinger) >> 2. ripe-589 question (Raimundas Tuminauskas) >> 3. Re: ripe-589 question (Sander Steffann) >> 4. 2013-06 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (PA/PI Unification IPv6 >> Address Space) (Marco Schmidt) >> 5. Re: 2013-03: Review Phase - New Proposal Description and >> Impact Analysis Published (Gert Doering) >> 6. Re: 2013-03: Review Phase - New Proposal Description and >> Impact Analysis Published (Richard Hartmann) >> 7. 2013-03 Last Call for Comments (Post Depletion Adjustment of >> Procedures to Match Policy Objectives, and Clean-up of Obsolete >> Policy Text) (Marco Schmidt) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:48:24 +0100 >> From: Sebastian Wiesinger >> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Announcing address resources >> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net >> Message-ID: <20131125084824.GA25194 at danton.fire-world.de> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >> >> * Nick Hilliard [2013-11-21 22:36]: >>> Apropos of, oh I don't know, the weather or the phase of the moon or >>> something, could someone point me to the RIPE policy which says that if >>> you're assigned address resources from the RIPE NCC, that they cannot be >>> announced from outside the RIPE NCC service region? >> Hi, >> >> the way I understood it is that the LIR company has to be in the RIPE >> region but where you announce your prefixes is your decision. I >> requested an AS&PA explicitly for announcement in asia without any >> problems. >> >> >> Regards >> >> Sebastian >> >> -- >> GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) >> 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. >> -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 05:57:33 +0200 >> From: Raimundas Tuminauskas >> Subject: [address-policy-wg] ripe-589 question >> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net >> Message-ID: <20131129055733.18765g0w8kjb0hog at pastas.litnet.lt> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" >> >> Dear all, >> >> We've ran into internal conflict assigning IPv6 address space. Anyone >> caring to provide independent view on this would be much appreciated. >> >> Problem: >> LITNET (org: ORG-LA11-RIPE) has been comprised of two ASNs 2847 and 5479. >> Current IPv6 allocation is /29 (inet6num: 2001:778::/29). >> Current policy is to assign /32 per AS. >> Proposed new policy is to assign /30 per AS. >> >> Arguments for new policy: >> - RIPE-589 3.4 (Aggregation) and 3.8 (Conflict of goals) >> >> Arguments for current policy: >> - Two routes will be announced anyway. Different AS_PATH and routing >> policies, no aggregation. >> - /32 is 1200+ /64s per head of population of the country. Should be >> enough for any local AS for foreseeable future. Revise assignment >> planning if not. >> - The same address space allocation will be preserved for future AS if >> any current end-user (university) would require independent routing >> policies. >> - We will not get any wider allocation. Next address range (if it will >> happen) will be far off from 2001:778 >> >> I'm not in favor of wasting a long-term resource like IPv6 and rather >> deviate from the policy, but maybe I'm missing a point here somewhere ? >> TIA >> >> sincerely, >> Raimundas Tuminauskas >> KTU ITD / LITNET NOC >> Studentu 48a, Kaunas >> 51367, Lithuania >> phone: +370 37300033 >> fax: +370 37300643 >> email: raimis at litnet.lt >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 07:32:40 +0100 >> From: Sander Steffann >> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] ripe-589 question >> To: Raimundas Tuminauskas >> Cc: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net Working Group" >> >> Message-ID: >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >> >> Hi, >> >>> We've ran into internal conflict assigning IPv6 address space. Anyone caring to provide independent view on this would be much appreciated. >>> >>> Problem: >>> LITNET (org: ORG-LA11-RIPE) has been comprised of two ASNs 2847 and 5479. >>> Current IPv6 allocation is /29 (inet6num: 2001:778::/29). >>> Current policy is to assign /32 per AS. >>> Proposed new policy is to assign /30 per AS. >>> >>> Arguments for new policy: >>> - RIPE-589 3.4 (Aggregation) and 3.8 (Conflict of goals) >>> >>> Arguments for current policy: >>> - Two routes will be announced anyway. Different AS_PATH and routing policies, no aggregation. >>> - /32 is 1200+ /64s per head of population of the country. Should be enough for any local AS for foreseeable future. Revise assignment planning if not. >> I wouldn't count separate /64s as that will give you a distorted number. Count using the assignment size you are using, which I assume is a /48 per customer/university/research-institution/etc. That gives you a maximum of 65536 per /32. In a country with a population of 3 million that is probably enough to number all your customers :-) >> >>> - The same address space allocation will be preserved for future AS if any current end-user (university) would require independent routing policies. >>> - We will not get any wider allocation. Next address range (if it will happen) will be far off from 2001:778 >> So why don't you announce 2001:778::/32 from one AS and 2001:77c::/32 from the other? If you need more space in one AS then you can grow to a /31 or /30, and if you don't need to grow them then you might, if at some point in the future you need a separate routing policy, announce the remaining space from a separate AS. >> >>> I'm not in favor of wasting a long-term resource like IPv6 and rather deviate from the policy, but maybe I'm missing a point here somewhere ? >> Well, you can get the /29, and nobody else is going to get it, so you might as well make the best use of it. I just asked the NCC to expand my /32 to a /29. I use the first /32 for a LISP-based ISP setup, and I'm going to use one or more separate /32s for training purposes for ISPs. The nice thing about IPv6 is that we can always get enough space for what we need (within limits of course ;-) >> >> Cheers, >> Sander >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 4 >> Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 15:07:24 +0100 >> From: "Marco Schmidt" >> Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (PA/PI >> Unification IPv6 Address Space) >> To: policy-announce at ripe.net >> Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net >> Message-ID: >> >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> >> The proposal 2013-06, "PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space" has been withdrawn. >> >> >> It is now archived and can be found at: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-06 >> >> >> Reason for withdrawal: During the Discussion Phase it became clear that the RIPE >> community did not see the need for such a complex change. As a result, the >> proposers decided to withdraw the proposal. >> >> >> Regards >> >> Marco Schmidt >> Policy Development Office >> RIPE NCC >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 5 >> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 19:31:21 +0100 >> From: Gert Doering >> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03: Review Phase - New Proposal >> Description and Impact Analysis Published >> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net >> Message-ID: <20131205183121.GA54642 at Space.Net> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> Dear AP WG, >> >> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:01:24AM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: >> [..] >>> We encourage you to read the proposal and the impact analysis and send any >>> comments to before 5 December 2013. >> the review phase for 2013-03 has ended today. No comments were received, >> thus I consider all opinions expressed in the previous review phase to be >> unchanged (as announced, given that the policy *text* has not changed >> at all) - that is, 32 persons expressing support of the proposal, 3 persons >> opposing it. >> >> Given the amount of support, and the nature of the opposition, the WG >> chairs have decided that we have reached rough consensus. We think that >> all counterarguments brought up by the opposers have been fully answered - >> this might not be sufficient to convince the opposers to change their mind, >> but given sufficient support otherwise, it's good enough to move forward. >> >> This is what we'll do now -> move 2013-03 to Last Call. Marco will send >> the formal announcement for that later today or tomorrow. >> >> For reference, a list of people that voiced support or opposition (or >> something else) in the previous review phase is appended below. This is >> what the chairs based their decision on. >> >> If you disagree with our interpretation of what has been said, and the >> conclusion we have drawn from it, please let us know. >> >> Gert Doering, >> Address Policy WG Chair >> >> >> support: >> Mikael Abrahamsson >> Randy Bush >> Daniel Stolpe >> Dimitri I Sidelnikov >> Andy Davidson >> Sascha Luck >> Jan Zorz >> Bengt G?rd?n >> Raluca Andreea Gogiou >> Roger J?rgensen >> Richard Hartmann (strong sentiments that this is the last round) >> Andreas Larsen >> Jan Ingvoldstad (strong sentiments that this is the last round) >> Elvis Daniel Velea >> Nigel Titley (seconding Richard's sentiments) >> Gerry Demaret >> Sebastian Wiesinger >> Lu Heng >> Sonderegger Olaf >> Ian Johannesen >> Fredrik Widell >> Alexey Ivanov >> Sandra Brown >> Donal Cunningham >> Tassos Chatzithomaoglou >> Mike Burns >> George Giannousopoulos >> Ragnar Anfinsen >> Milton L Mueller >> Ronny Boesger >> Dominik Bay >> Lutz Donnerhacke >> >> support, based on changes to the external PR regarding 2013-03, and >> some future PDP tasks for the chairs and the community >> Malcolm Hutty (see <52406426.8080405 at linx.net> for details) >> >> neutral (mailing to the thread, but not expressing support/opposition): >> CJ Aronson >> Nick Hilliard >> Hans Petter Holen >> John Curran >> >> >> opposing: >> McTim >> "I don't think shifting to a market based allocation/assignment system >> is good stewardship. In addition there are multiple issues listed in >> the Impact Analysis that cause me great concern. The primary issue >> there is incompatibility with other regional transfer policies." >> >> considered to be completely answered by the chairs, on the basis >> that 2013-03 does not introduce a transfer market, documenting the >> goal to assign to end users was introduced in v3 of the proposal, >> and incompatibilities with other regions' transfer policies can be >> amended by adding appropriate checks to our cross-RIR-policy-to-be, >> if the community ever expresses enough interest to make one (which >> currently does not seem to be the case). >> >> Also, most other issues raised in the IA have been addressed by v4 >> of the proposal, which changed the title and rationale to send a >> less controversial message to external parties. So we consider this >> to be addressed as well. >> >> Filiz Yilmaz >> would support if criteria for allocation would be amended to include >> "LIR must demonstrate its need for the IPv4 address space" >> >> This was carefully listened to, and discussed with NCC RS to see >> what the impact would be. NCC RS stated that the addition of this >> sentence would not change their interpretation of the policy, given >> that all the LIR can do to demonstrate it's need is the willingness >> to make an assignment from it - and that is already there. >> >> Based on this and based on the significant number of people asking for >> the proposal to go forward and not do another round of textual change >> and impact analysis, the chairs decided to consider this point >> answered, and go forward. >> >> Sylvain Vallerot >> main issue seems to be that this proposal would bring LIR admins >> under pressure from unreasonable customer demands and that could >> create very problematic situations inside the LIR, without being >> able to point to RIR policies to back not giving out addresses. >> >> considered to be answered by the proposer, as there is pressure >> inside all LIRs anyway, and even with the old formalism in place, >> a LIR might very well run into the same situation of having to deny >> addresses to some of it's customer as there are just not enough left >> anymore to give all of them what they ask for. >> >> David Farmer >> initially "-1"'ing, then clarifying this to be more on the discussion >> between Sylvain and Tore, and explicitely stating neutrality on the >> proposal itself >> -- >> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? >> >> SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard >> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann >> D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) >> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 >> -------------- next part -------------- >> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... >> Name: not available >> Type: application/pgp-signature >> Size: 826 bytes >> Desc: not available >> Url : https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20131205/c9364fea/attachment-0001.bin >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 6 >> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 21:33:26 +0100 >> From: Richard Hartmann >> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03: Review Phase - New Proposal >> Description and Impact Analysis Published >> To: Gert Doering >> Cc: Address Policy Working Group >> Message-ID: >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >> >> Dear chair, >> >> thanks for your work; tracking this behemoth of a discussion must be a >> lot of fun! >> >> >> Richard >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 7 >> Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 14:13:31 +0100 >> From: "Marco Schmidt" >> Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 Last Call for Comments (Post >> Depletion Adjustment of Procedures to Match Policy Objectives, and >> Clean-up of Obsolete Policy Text) >> To: policy-announce at ripe.net >> Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net >> Message-ID: >> >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> >> The proposal described in 2013-03, "Post Depletion Adjustment of Procedures >> to Match Policy Objectives, and Clean-up of Obsolete Policy Text", is now >> in its Concluding Phase. >> >> The Address Policy Working Group co-Chairs have declared that consensus for >> the proposal has been reached and it will now move to Last Call. >> >> As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of these >> coming four weeks of Last Call is to give the community the opportunity >> to present well-justified objections in case anyone missed the previous >> two phases and want to oppose the proposal. >> >> Any objection must be made by 6 January 2014 and must be supported by an >> explanation. >> >> If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the >> proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the co-Chairs of >> all RIPE Working Groups for consensus. >> >> You can find the full proposal at: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03 >> >> Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg at ripe.net >> before 6 January 2014. >> >> >> Regards >> >> Marco Schmidt >> Policy Development Office >> RIPE NCC >> >> >> >> >> End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 28, Issue 1 >> ************************************************ > > From mgrigore at ripe.net Tue Dec 10 16:47:16 2013 From: mgrigore at ripe.net (Mihnea-Costin Grigore) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:47:16 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Fixed Links in Policy Proposal 2013-03 Message-ID: <52A73784.2050307@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, Thank you for pointing out the links that weren't working in the policy proposal 2013-03. We have now fixed these in all versions of the proposal. Furthermore, we have checked the other policy proposal pages to ensure that all links are working correctly. We apologise for the inconvenience caused and will enact processes to regularly double-check external links on our website to prevent this from happening. Regards, Mihnea-Costin Grigore Web Services Team Leader RIPE NCC From hph at oslo.net Mon Dec 16 11:33:44 2013 From: hph at oslo.net (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:33:44 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Reclaiming unused Ipv4 blocks In-Reply-To: References: <7E62FA9E-37C6-43EC-B5E1-6498039D8AAD@edisglobal.com> <54E53DFD-5E8D-4CFC-9A0F-3556C24DFC07@anytimechinese.com> <001EB946-E454-430D-9A08-31E78D7B67B0@inasset.es> <4E8EBF30-DBBD-4D2B-9738-984EE86C5FA9@anytimechinese.com> <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com> <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net> <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu> <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> Message-ID: <52AED708.4050207@oslo.net> (Hi, I have changed the subject since the substance of the discussion now seem to have moved to a discussion on how to reclaim unused Ipv4 to prolong the lifetime of Ipv4. On 16.12.2013 10:58, Oliver Bryssau wrote: > Actually, releasing those big unused IPv4 blocks It would be good for the discussion to understand which blocks we are talking about: - legacy space - (from IANA or InterNic) - before RIPE creation - older RIPE space not fully utilized - recent RIPE space not yet utilized There has been various attempts to reclaim address space in the past. Using the RIPE fee structure in this context may be more difficult and is ultimately a topic for the General Assembly. The fee is not for the lease or purchase off address space but a fee for the services provided by the RIPE NCC to its members. Registration services is only part of this fee, there are also other services and most importantly support for the Policy process and RIPE meetings. The breakdown of the cost is now in the activity plan. Hans Petter From gert at space.net Tue Dec 17 11:14:11 2013 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 11:14:11 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [members-discuss] other options to ? Reclaiming unused Ipv4 blocks In-Reply-To: References: <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net> <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu> <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> <52AED708.4050207@oslo.net> Message-ID: <20131217101411.GN81676@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:09:09AM +0100, "Mag. Matthias ?ubik" wrote: [..] Please do *not* cross-post between the members-discuss and address-policy-wg mailing lists. Charging scheme discussions should stay in members-discuss, as APWG has no direct influence on the charging scheme. Policy change discussions are welcome in the address-policy-wg list, but should not cross-post to members-discuss, as that will fragment the discussion threads (some replies go to one of the lists, some go to the other, noise level goes up). Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 826 bytes Desc: not available URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Tue Dec 17 11:18:36 2013 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 11:18:36 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [members-discuss] other options to ? Reclaiming unused Ipv4 blocks In-Reply-To: <20131217101411.GN81676@Space.Net> References: <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net> <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu> <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> <52AED708.4050207@oslo.net> <20131217101411.GN81676@Space.Net> Message-ID: Hi I personally believe it is not even fair to discuss policy in member mailing list--policy is made by and for the community, not only ripe members. So anything related to future policy change should stay in APWG. ? 2013?12?17?????Gert Doering ??? > Hi, > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:09:09AM +0100, "Mag. Matthias ?ubik" wrote: > [..] > > Please do *not* cross-post between the members-discuss and > address-policy-wg > mailing lists. > > Charging scheme discussions should stay in members-discuss, as APWG > has no direct influence on the charging scheme. > > Policy change discussions are welcome in the address-policy-wg list, but > should not cross-post to members-discuss, as that will fragment the > discussion threads (some replies go to one of the lists, some go to the > other, noise level goes up). > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthias.subik at ucnd.at Tue Dec 17 11:09:09 2013 From: matthias.subik at ucnd.at (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Mag=2E_Matthias_=8Aubik=22?=) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 11:09:09 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] =?windows-1252?q?=5Bmembers-discuss=5D_other_?= =?windows-1252?q?options_to__=85_Reclaiming_unused_Ipv4_blocks?= In-Reply-To: <52AED708.4050207@oslo.net> References: <7E62FA9E-37C6-43EC-B5E1-6498039D8AAD@edisglobal.com> <54E53DFD-5E8D-4CFC-9A0F-3556C24DFC07@anytimechinese.com> <001EB946-E454-430D-9A08-31E78D7B67B0@inasset.es> <4E8EBF30-DBBD-4D2B-9738-984EE86C5FA9@anytimechinese.com> <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com> <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net> <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu> <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> <52AED708.4050207@oslo.net> Message-ID: Hello, On 16.12.2013, at 11:33, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > (Hi, I have changed the subject since the substance of the discussion > now seem to have moved to a discussion on how to reclaim unused Ipv4 to > prolong the lifetime of Ipv4. I would disagree that this should be the primary reason for a changed charging scheme. Let me draw a little picture here, starting from the criticism on unexplained large allocation holders. There are lots of little LIRs out there (we are one of them), counting IPv4 addresses in the little thousands. As a late starter, this is what we got, and we are (still) happy with it. But when comparing IPv6 migration schemes, we know that the late and little ISPs can't count on IPv4 or Dual-Stack for further growth. But incumbent telcos have the large allocations OR the money, to buy addresses if they need one. So any change towards making each and every IPv4 address count ten cents into the RIPE fees, and e.g. 1 cent for every /64 in v6 should make sure that addresses are used or returned. So I definitely don't want to extend the life of IPv4, as it makes the future more uncertain, difficult and less interesting, I do would like to see a move that does not put me in the position to wait for the customer to get tired of dual stack, wanting to come to my IPv6 offering. If RIPE gets IPv4 space back, there is no good reason (yet) to give it out again, but they should get it back, as it helps getting the nail on the coffin in (for v4). This should also be interesting for the IPv4 Investment folks, as long as they hold addresses (and pay to RIPE), they can still sell it higher to the ones in need of addresses later, as supply is much scarce by then. To summarize: asking fees for large IPv4 blocks should only accelerate the transition, not help others to reused addresses. Right now you can buy addresses (via the market at RIPE), you can put out LIR applications in large packages, or privately approach large IP allocation holders. The market is already there, the price is predictable. best regards Matthias Subik -- UCND United City Network Development GmbH Steingasse 23 1030 Wien, ?sterreich FN 188089b beim Handelsgericht Wien UID ATU 54974906 Mag. Matthias ?ubik Head of Solution Design Tel.: +43 676 83820-787 From elvis at velea.eu Thu Dec 19 20:22:09 2013 From: elvis at velea.eu (Elvis Velea) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:22:09 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-05 Last Call for Comments (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers) In-Reply-To: <20131101180926.GM50205@Space.Net> References: <01b901ced707$7d64e430$782eac90$@a2b-internet.com> <20131101180926.GM50205@Space.Net> Message-ID: <52B34761.5040408@velea.eu> Hi Gert, I see that the last call for 2013-05 has ended on the 28th of November 2013. Have the working group chairs reached any decision? Kind regards. Elvis On 01/11/13 19:09, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 02:37:20PM +0100, Erik Bais wrote: >> Having said that, I want to express my support for Sascha's proposal. > > Thanks. > > Just for clarity (because I got another inquiry by personal mail) - in > Last Call, no further statements of support are formally required, that > is, if not a single mail is received in Last Call phase, this is still > considered by the PDP as "support" (based on the support in the previous > phases) - "silence is consent", in and *only in* the Last Call phase. > > OTOH, if someone has a valid concern, answering that is welcome, of course :-) > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > From gert at space.net Thu Dec 19 20:34:35 2013 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:34:35 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-05 Last Call for Comments (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers) In-Reply-To: <52B34761.5040408@velea.eu> References: <01b901ced707$7d64e430$782eac90$@a2b-internet.com> <20131101180926.GM50205@Space.Net> <52B34761.5040408@velea.eu> Message-ID: <20131219193435.GB81676@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 08:22:09PM +0100, Elvis Velea wrote: > I see that the last call for 2013-05 has ended on the 28th of November 2013. > > Have the working group chairs reached any decision? As soon as enough chairs have stated their decision (*this* is done by majority vote, which can take "a bit", and then a bit longer :( ), we'll let the WG know. Too many chairs seem to have already left for holiday, it seems... Gert Doering -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 826 bytes Desc: not available URL: From elvis at velea.eu Thu Dec 19 20:37:03 2013 From: elvis at velea.eu (Elvis Velea) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:37:03 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-05 Last Call for Comments (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers) In-Reply-To: <20131219193435.GB81676@Space.Net> References: <01b901ced707$7d64e430$782eac90$@a2b-internet.com> <20131101180926.GM50205@Space.Net> <52B34761.5040408@velea.eu> <20131219193435.GB81676@Space.Net> Message-ID: <52B34ADF.7040200@velea.eu> Hey, On 19/12/13 20:34, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 08:22:09PM +0100, Elvis Velea wrote: >> I see that the last call for 2013-05 has ended on the 28th of November 2013. >> >> Have the working group chairs reached any decision? > > As soon as enough chairs have stated their decision (*this* is done by > majority vote, which can take "a bit", and then a bit longer :( ), we'll > let the WG know. hehe, okay :-) > Too many chairs seem to have already left for holiday, it seems... Well, I suppose it's time to wish all of you guys a Merry Christmas and a Happy New year! ;) > > Gert Doering > cheers, Elvis From mschmidt at ripe.net Fri Dec 20 15:11:06 2013 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:11:06 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-05 Proposal Accepted (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers) Message-ID: <52B44FFA.5050802@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal for a change to the RIPE Document ripe-592, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-05 The new RIPE document is ripe-599 and it is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-599 An announcement regarding the implementation will follow. Thank you for your input. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Office RIPE NCC